Stephen Lawrence - DNA Evidence now in doubt

Stephen Lawrence - DNA Evidence now in doubt

Written by Green Arrow

March 2012

I for one, wondered about the validity of the DNA evidence that they used to get a guilty verdict against the men who the establishment say, killed the black drug dealer Stephen Lawrence - who has gone from being a street yob to a Saint since his death. Now it seem that convictions for murder and rape are to be reviewed, because of a "mistake" at the forensics laboratory that handled the DNA evidence in the Stephen Lawrence case. The parents of the dead teenager have been informed about this new development, in one of the longest cases of persecution I have ever seen. One would hope that they did not get priority treatment in this matter. Personally I never believed that the DNA evidence in this case was genuine, as we have seen the lengths to which the evil establishment will go to to get the results they want, be it illegal wars, silencing whistle blowers or fabricating evidence.

The Basis of a Lie , The EU

The Basis of a Lie

Written by Richard Newman

March 2012

Steering away from arguments about morality, and religion. I believe that safer ground can be found on the subject of the European Union. It is interesting to observe peoples thoughts on our entry and the events after our entry into the trading zone, which most people believed they were joining. On the BBC website they have a large amount of research material, part of which includes comments by Steve Johnson, on his mother receiving vote yes material in her wage packet during the referendum of 1975. The material stated: A YES vote would ensure no more wars for my generation A YES vote would guarantee prosperity for jobs and the future We know of course that by joining the EEC we betrayed our own Commonwealth by destroying their export market overnight. Edward Heath and his gang of traitors knew this, just as they knew that the ultimate goal was the destruction of Britain and the emergence of the European Superstate. For the younger readers, it is worth noting that it was the Conservative government of the traitor Edward Heath who passed legislation to enter the EEC in 1973. The first large referendum to decide on continued membership took place as stated in 1975, as a result of an election promise by Labours Harold Wilson. The YES campaign was supported by the Media and the Banksters, with every household in Britain receiving a leaflet supporting the yes campaign. This YES campaign was of course massively over funded, in line with other campaigns that have occurred since. Even with this funding avalanche just under one third voted against membership. We have been promised a referendum, but so far NO main stream political organisation has allowed the people a say on the EU. Back to those promises - No more wars! Well with the exception of the Balkans there has not been a major war in Europe since 1945. The world of the 21st Century continues to be beset by war and civil strife, so yes they lied. We have been involved in at least five major wars since. Economic prosperity and jobs? In 1975 we were rated and had the following unemployment figures; Unemployment peaked at over 10% or just over 3 million in 1986, using government figures. Economically our tax burden in 1975 was 54%, it has now risen to 57%. However, the main change was in borrowing set at 43% of GDP in 1975. It has now risen to over 68% according to treasury figures. The unemployment figure now is 8.4% (Dec 2011), before we entered Europe it was 3.4%. So thanks to EU membership our unemployment has increased by at least 5%. In December 2011 national public debt was set at 64% of GDP. However, the unadjusted measure of public sector net debt is 148% of GDP or £2266.3 billion, a staggering sum. No wonder over 50% of the electorate do not vote, the lies of our political elite have cost us jobs and money. Many ordinary people now believe that at some stage in the near future, because of the financial hardships caused by government policy and membership of the EU empire, civil war will be inevitable.

A Development of Conservatism for our Time and the Future

A Development of Conservatism for our Time and the Future

Written by David Hamilton

March 2012

An essay attacking a particular type of Conservatism by Alex Kurtagic was published on alternativeright.com. I sent them a response in the interest of a debate. They would not publish it. There are different types of conservatism and I write of one that is not only relevant but crucial to our survival as a people: a specific type of conservatism that is national Conservatism, not monetarist or free market economics nor neo-Conservatism, and certainly not penalising our poor people - but re-linking with our traditions, history and our ancestors to Conserve ourselves as a people. When a worldview becomes dominant it marginalises the opposing view and that is what has happened to traditional or national conservatism. Another complication is that new liberalism is different from classical liberalism. In the 1960s the New Left took over Liberalism but changed the content. For example, and this is profoundly important, individual rights became group rights. This shifted it to totalitarian thinking as group rights gave minority groups (victims) preferential treatment over the host population (oppressors). I use the term Progressive to cover the ideological outlooks ranging from Liberalism to Marxism which grew out of the Enlightenment. They all believe that change is always better than what is; and that we are ineluctably headed for better world, the brotherhood of man – a Utopia. Conservatism is opposed to progressivism as it has a respect for our past and traditions and believes that by studying history we are equipped to deal with present crises by applying the lessons of history: how our forebears solved similar situations in the past. It uses practical reasoning not rationalistic thinking; concrete words rather than abstractions and favours the particular over the universal, though it uses substantial universals to describe concrete objects like White men and White women. Progressives remove the substance from words, we keep it. A non-ideological worldview A formal ideology is written down like a "How to book" which tells people how to think and behave. Formal ideology grew out of the Enlightenment to replace religion with a secular programme of thinking and behaving and those who deviate have to be corrected. This began the change in the rulers from an aristocratic class based on blood and land to rule by secular elites united by thinking and saying the right things - an "Ideological Caste." Ideological thinking starts with first principles and requires underpinnings to support or justify beliefs. This Conservatism is not an ideology but a view of the world that grows out of our emotional bonds with our families and expands outwards through neighbourhood and community to the nation. It emanates out to Europe and the Anglosphere, though weaker. For example, we feel for the South African Boers in these days of their genocide. It is stronger at home and a parent who wishes other children to do better than their own is perverse. We have a responsibility for our kin, and a duty to them. We have a duty to pass on what we have inherited to our children, as they, in turn, will have a duty to their children. We owe a debt to our ancestors who bequeathed to us our nation and culture and we must honour that. A people need the numinous things in life – religion, art, culture, a wholesome countryside. The numinous is a feeling of, and a need for, the sacred, the holy, and the transcendent; not just the material and the hedonistic. The Ideological uses of language. It is not possible to explain your thoughts or feelings without language, which is why the elites are reducing vocabulary so we can not think the wrong things. When the state controls thought and language we are controlled in our ability to think as was demonstrated by the descriptions of Newspeak in Orwell’s 1984. They use linguistic connotations like “racism” which only applies to “White” or “British”. They are also cutting education down so that we don't know our history and where we are from and so that we have less knowledge to argue with. The elites try to change our thinking by changing our vocabulary: the British government guidelines to the media suggesting certain words about non-white crime be replaced. The words to be suppressed included “immigrant,” “illegal immigrant,” “illegal asylum seeker,” “bogus asylum seeker,” “non-white,” “non-Christian,” “mixed race,” “half-caste,” “mulatto.” There is the substitution of euphemistic terms for those that reflect reality as in the official designation of “Anti-Islamic activity” for Muslim terrorists. The use of Political Correctness is a way of training people to think of, and to perceive, reality in the official way. If you think differently you are a “hater”, a “racist”. In fact, though, Prejudice is traditional wisdom received from our ancestors. It saves us learning the hard way and we would have been spared this dispossession by immigrants if our natural prejudices had been followed after the last war. Ideological change of the meaning of words passes for common usage as people innocently adopt them: bigot and tolerance are prominent examples. Bigot means one who refuses to listen to the opinions of others but is misused as a connotative word that only applies to “right-wingers”. A classic example of this Doublespeak was during the general election campaign when Gordon Brown described a woman who asked him about imported labour as a bigot; but he was the one being bigoted because he refused to listen to her opinions! Tolerance meant to tolerate an action or to put up with something one did not like, but is now misused to make indigenous British people passive and accept being replaced by immigrants. We need a concrete, definite vocabulary, not vague language like person and humanity, but terms like“Englishman or Englishwoman, Welshman or Welshwoman, Scotsman or Scotswoman or Irishman or Irishwoman”, “boy” and “girl”; land rather than country. They are more specific, convey a solid idea of substance; and get away from the woolly vocabulary that is a cause of our collective loss of touch with reality. This would clarify what we are referring to and make our common intercourse more realistic. The great Welsh national anthem “Land of My Fathers” is a is a pertinent example as it makes a clear statement of debt to forebears and suggests the piety necessary to honour what the ancestors have left us and our obligation to hand it on to our descendants. This is embodied in the Fifth Commandment to honour thy mother and father. Unless they are very cruel parents, of course. Restructuring our Thought We are in a period of social engineering and traditional ways of thinking are being systematically broken down. A television programme “Gypsy Wars” contrasted a local woman and tinkers who had invaded her land and reversed the roles as we experience them. The intellectual and media elites think our traditional view of the world is pathological and try to correct it for us. They show us or a representative, in the role of what they think are our stereotypes - we are cast as the tinkers - to mould the public's views and change attitudes. No young Gypsy men were shown, because they would be aggressive and the programme makers did not want to show them as a threat; village life was not shown because that is appealing and viewers would sympathise with the woman; the woman was selected because she is not typical of rural people but a bit eccentric and could be set up as the aggressor when she was the victim. This is Television re-structuring thought in accordance with their Progressive ideology. Last August the police had to close the largest gypsy camp in Britain at Dale Farm and the biased television news reports once again left gypsy men out of their news reports and documentaries. For years vacancies in television were only advertised in the Bourgoise-Socialist Guardian newspaper to filter out applicants with the wrong attitudes. A world view to unite us How do we counter the dominant ideology? The way to develop a new world view is to gather examples from the world around us, of what is really happening as a result of, say, immigration, collate it and our version of reality begins to form. The first thing is to understand human nature and what people are capable of doing to one another. We also need to consider what gives life meaning and this leads to the idea that nationalism is about our nation and a nation means a group of racially linked people with whom we belong by emotional attachments. I openly admit to being a racialist because I believe in racial differences between people, but do not hate other peoples and do not accept the Marxist pejorative term “racist.” By linking to our Conservative traditions we would give supporters a secure base to argue from with abundant role models like Enoch Powell, the great fifth Marquess of Salisbury who fought against immigration and defended “our kith and Kin” in Rhodesia and Sir Winston Churchill, who tried to introduce a Bill to control immigration in 1955 (1), and many others. That and quotes from our history and that would strengthen their conviction and impress their hearers. People follow the dominant elites because they appear stronger and successful; even many who agree with us vote for one of the dominant parties for those reasons. A conviction based on the knowledge that we follow in the steps of great national figures would help counter that disadvantage. Simple or self-loathing people say "So what?". "It doesn't matter if different people take over!" This shows a failure to understand human nature. They think it will be painless like handing the baton on in a relay race, but examples from history like the Norman invasion, show the oppression the conquered have to endure; other countries like South Africa and Zimbabwe show what will befall our children if the evil elites are not countered. We are being dehumanised and made a non people. We must abandon this inculcated niceness, this apologetic approach and assert our selves. We need to give our people a sense of their collective worth for the common good. The next generation need to be built up to inherit the responsibility for our life and culture. The media are occupying them with what to wear, how to get their hair done and where to have a tat! It is done to get their money and is morally evil as they are being debauched by temptations and enticements. We must stress the positive benefits we have to offer our people: preferential treatment in their own country, better education, priority in housing and employment for our children and protection from child-rape by older members of the rival Muslim community. You only need look at the un-British names of graduates from medical and law schools when they are reported in the newspapers to see how our young are being deprived of opportunities that are their birthright. We would offer English, Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh children more opportunities and a better future without unfair competition from outsiders. This is the natural way and we are finding words to express this and to make our thoughts clearer to ourselves. Click here for the reference notes for this essay

Dr Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury: Marxism posing as Christianity

Dr Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury

Written by Tim Heydon

March 2012

Dr Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury: Leftism posing as Christianity ‘We must Love the whole World like our own Family’. So says the Archbishop of Canterbury. Coming from him, it’s one of those leftist / liberal ideals about universal equality and benevolence that seem Christian at first sight (‘equality’ of ethnic / sex representation in the workplace or in the universities or indeed in the country as a whole is another) but are actually anti-human and anti-christian because they are psychologically or practically impossible and actually personally and socially harmful. But they are important because they have such a strong influence on public policy in this country. What if your Mother is Drowning? Let’s take a brief look at what it would mean to love the whole world like your own family. Suppose you and your mother were (for example) involved in a shipwreck. Your mother is in the water, drowning. She is calling for help. But someone else’s mother, also drowning and calling for help, is closer. You can only save one of them. It would be a better bet when it comes to try to saving life if you were to go to the aid of this nearer stranger rather than to your own mother. On the basis that you ought to love the stranger as much as your own mother, you should forget about your mother and save this other woman instead. What if your Daughter is suffering Psychologically? Or your daughter is suffering from a facial disfigurement which is crippling her psychologically and will wreck her life chances but which is not life-threatening or even otherwise disabling. You have a certain amount of money which will pay for plastic surgery to reconstruct her face. Meantime, in Africa, children are dying in an epidemic. You should throw away your child’s only chance of surgery and give your money to save the life of someone in Africa whom you have never met, since you are supposed to love this unknown stranger as much as your own daughter. What if your Family is starving? Or your family is starving and so is the family next door. You have a certain amount of food. It is just enough to keep your own family alive but you should share it equally with the family next door as equal love demands, even though it means that all of you will eventually die. What if your People are struck by Famine? Again, a famine strikes your entire area or country. You have personal resources which can rectify the situation but only for a certain number. Equal love means that you should allocate these resources to all equally to postpone disaster for everyone, even when your area or country contains many people from alien countries and cultures with whom you have no affinities and if you allocated resources only to those of your own ethnic ‘family’ or group it would save their lives indefinitely. Asking the Psychologically Impossible From the examples above it will readily be seen that the requirement to love the whole world as your own family is psychologically impossible and therefore anti-human. It is also highly undesirable. If it were capable of being carried out it would be a certain recipe for destroying families and communities and wrecking people emotionally. Universal Benevolence in the name of Equality undermines Character Thomas Malthus (1766 - 1834) - he of the population / resources theory - was possibly the first to note that rather than relieving poverty within a parish as they were designed to do, the Poor Laws actually increased poverty overall. He concluded that; ‘Widespread poverty cannot be relieved from the outside world and therefore can be relieved (if at all), only by the industry, self-reliance and pride of the poor themselves.’ (Quoted by Patrick Keeney, The Quarterly Review Winter 2011 / 2012). ‘The trouble with benevolence, then,’ Keeney goes on, ‘is that it has triumphed at the expense of precisely those virtues and character traits – industry, thrift, self-reliance – most needed to lift the poor out of their impoverished state.’ What is true of the Parish Poor is also true of Third World Aid and Mass Immigration What is true of universal benevolence towards the parish poor is also true of third world aid which actually undermines the efforts of those countries receiving it to lift themselves up out of poverty and leads to corruption of the giver as well as the receiver. Quantities of David Cameron’s £1 Billion ’Peanut’ aid to India, designed at public expense to show that the Tory Party is ‘caring’, is ’misspent’. And what is true of third world aid is true of all the other aspects of universal benevolence, including opening up our country to mass immigration which is leading to the disintegration of what was one of the most settled societies on earth. What does Christianity teach about Family responsibilities? Which brings us to what Jesus actually taught. Yes, we are told to ‘be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect’ (Matt 5:48) and since God is universally loving then so it appears must we be. But it’s not possible for us to be perfect like God and to love universally. So how are we to interpret Christ's injunction, which cannot be taken literally? Jesus and the Practicalities of Everyday Living As well as his demand that we be perfect like God, Jesus was concerned with the practicalities of everyday living. So, for example, even in the times when he was inaugurating the New Covenant there were some calls to radical forms of discipleship and the apostles were called to 'abnormal service', they were never free to neglect their responsibilities to their families. In some cases, people whose lives were touched by Jesus wanted to leave family and travel with him, but he instructed them to go back and minister to their responsibilities, as he did himself on the Cross (Seeing his mother standing with ‘The Beloved Disciple’, he commended her into his care). The Apostles, including St Peter travelled with their wives during their itinerant ministries (I Cor 9.5). No one was given the option of not providing for the needs of those left behind. As St Paul remarked: ‘If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." (1 Timothy 5-8) A moral 'Platonic Form' So we may conclude that Jesus’ call to universal love is not the egalitarian leftism of the Archbishop. It is a kind of moral Platonic Form, a perfect version to be found only in God. Jesus knows that in our humanness we can never reach the perfection which loves all equally but he commands that we must try, subject to the limits of our natures. His example and that of the Apostles shows that this means that he does not ask the impossible of us; to treat the whole world as our own family as the Archbishop apparently does. His demand combines the personal and the universal. Those closest to us, our own family and those we love best come first, as for us they must. Then, we must turn our attention to others. That is what the Good Samaritan did. He gave personal aid to a Jew, a member of a hostile ethnic group, out of his own resources only when it was truly necessary. He did this out of pity, not because of some ideology of equality and the need for the equal distribution of resources. When he took the mugged Jew to an inn, he left him there and (presumably) returned to his own family, as did the Jew when he recovered. One’s own family comes first. So much for Families. What about Nations or Ethnic Groups? Enough has been said, surely, to show that Christianity asks us to put our own families first. What about nations? Here again we find that Christian universal benevolence involves both the particular and the universal. One can do no better than to set out the views of the Russian Orthodox Church which expresses sense and humanity in a way the Archbishop of Canterbury has so signally failed to do. Whilst warning against the excesses that national or ethnic feeling can lead to, the Church states: 'II. 2. The universal nature of the Church, however, does not mean that Christians should have no right to national identity and national self-expressions…. Christians, aware of being citizens of the heavenly homeland, should not forget about their earthly homeland. The Lord Jesus Christ Himself, the Divine Founder of the Church, had no shelter on earth (Mt. 8:20) and pointed that the teaching He brought was not local or national in nature: «the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father» (Jn. 4:21). Nevertheless, He identified Himself with the people to whom He belonged by birth. Talking to the Samaritan woman, He stressed His belonging to the Jewish nation: «Ye worship ye know what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews» (Jn. 4:22). Jesus was a loyal subject of the Roman Empire and paid taxes in favour of Caesar (Mt. 22-16-21). St. Paul, in his letters teaching on the supranational nature of the Church of Christ, did not forget that by birth he was «an Hebrew of the Hebrews» (Phil. 3:5), though a Roman by citizenship (Acts 22:25-29). 1.3. Christian patriotism may be expressed at the same time with regard to a nation as an ethnic community and as a community of its citizens. The Orthodox Christian is called to love his fatherland, which has a territorial dimension, and his brothers by blood who live anywhere in the world.....' -(‘Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church’, Jubilee Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 13-16 August 2000, pp 4-7) The Archbishop and Leftist Philosophy together in Error Interestingly, the ethical requirement advocated by the Archbishop of Canterbury illustrated above is exactly the position taken by the atheistic philosopher Peter Singer, who is a favourite of the left. Singer doesn’t talk about love or equality but equality is at the root of his thought. In its practicalities, he arrives at the same ethical destination as the Archbishop on the basis, not that we are special beings equally valuable to a loving God, but on the contrary, on the basis that there is nothing special or valuable about human beings because there is no God. Human Beings are simply animals. The urge to favour those who are most closely allied to you by blood; your relatives and ethnic group and the morality associated with this urge are primitive relics of our evolution and should, he argues be rejected, because mankind has ‘moved on’ as ‘progress’ demands. The question arises with Singer: if there is no God and we are merely animals, the products of a blind and meaningless evolution, why should we do anything for anyone other than the promptings of our 'animal' nature? He can have no satisfactory answer to that because there isn't one. So much for ‘Progress’ Well, so much for leftist ‘progress’ which would radically dehumanise us and lead to a cold hell of emotional atrophy and nazi and marxist-like diminution of human worth. Human flourishing requires the love and individual attention that is best provided by the family and it requires identity as against the mass that is best provided by extended 'families'; unforced collectivities of natural affinities such as ethnic nations. Traditional Christianity as expressed by the Russian Orthodox Church recognises this but Leftism, obsessed by false ‘equality’, does not. That the same conclusion is arrived at by two seemingly completely opposed approaches demonstrates merely that both are wrong and have the same anti-humanity at heart.

1,544 White Farmers Murdered in South Africa Rainbow Nation ?

1,544 White Farmers Murdered in South Africa

By Andrew Brons MEP. at BNP Ideas

On Wednesday morning we attended a Conference in the European Parliament that was addressed by Henk van de Graaf, the Vice President of Transvaal Farmers’ Union.

He gave a horrifying account of planned and politically-motivated and racially-motivated attacks on Afrikaners’ farms and on the Afrikaners and their families. He gave a vivid and heart-rending account of a farmer, his wife and three year old daughter being tortured to death.

The political motivation of the attacks could not be doubted. An Africa National Congress (ANC) youth leader had popularised the slogans: Kill a Boer; Kill a Farmer and One Boer, One Bullet. Furthermore, during the World Cup in South Africa (when the South African Government was concerned about its image), the killings stopped miraculously but temporarily.

The number of white farmers had halved and the proportion of land owned by Whites had fallen from 50% to 33%. However, the land handed over to the Black population had been neglected and produced little food. The irony is that South Africa had been producing a large food surplus but food production had fallen so much that it was now barely self-sufficient.

When farmers had reported attempted attacks, the police had refused to take any action saying that they had no fuel for their vehicles.

The response of the world media was not dissimilar, although they did not quite plead that they had no ink for their printing presses. It would have more accurate to say that they had no ears capable of hearing accounts of atrocities against Whites and no fingers that could be motivated to type the true story of Post-Apartheid South Africa into their PCs.

Of course, journalists do not think, listen and write in a void. They reflect the limitations of the Political Class of which they are a part. A report, on Emerging Economies, issued in the European Parliament only this week* refers to South Africa as follows:

“South Africa given its record of successful and peaceful transition to democracy and good governance, fostering regional economic integration and supporting national reconciliation across Africa……”

A capacity for self-delusion is not yet compulsory for MEPs but it helps.

*A Report on the EU Foreign Policy towards the BRICS and other emerging powers: objectives and strategies. Rapporteur: Jacek Saryusz-Wolski

Democracy Dies via World Debt

Democracy Dies

Posted at BNP Ideas

By William Spearshake. If any reader would like to be scared out of their wits, the most frightening website in the world at the moment is actually that of the financial magazine The Economist, specifically this one.

That website features a global debt clock, in which the amount of debt run-up by world governments taken as a collective whole is shown. The figure rises every moment.

I recommend you visit that site, provided you are not of a nervous disposition. One way of describing it is to call it the financial equivalent of the shower scene in Hitchcock’s Psycho.

The world’s debt is increasing at a rate of about one million US dollars every 12 seconds – that’s $5 million a minute, $300 million an hour, over $7 billion each day, $35 billion each week…

It seems impossible for the world to go on increasing its aggregate public debt at this white-knuckle speed much longer. Already, we are feeling the impact of it in Britain.

However, the biggest calamity at this current period is that which is being inflicted upon the ordinary citizens of Greece by that destroyer of Democracy, the European Union.

It was recently reports that Christos Papoutsis, the Greek Minister for Public Order, has stated that the austerity cuts the European Union has demanded have now pushed the citizens of Greece to the limit – and despite this human suffering, the powers behind the European finances have demanded a further swathe of austerity cuts of 325 million Euros, on top of everything Greece has already been forced to cut!

Following the violent, understandable and desperate public riots, Mr. Papoutsis has said that Greece has made superhuman efforts to comply with the EU demands, and that the ordinary people of his country cannot take any more.

However, in what may be called “the small print”, the situation within Europe may rapidly become even worse than we are imagining at the moment.

Because, adding insult to injury, the EU has also made the demand that all the main Greek political parties must give a signed personal guarantee that, no matter which of them wins the forthcoming general election in April, the national budget cuts will not be permitted to be adjusted down, let alone revoked.

Now, hold on a minute – surely this EU demand is, inarguably and inexcusably, a direct and flagrant assault upon the very central pillars of Democracy itself?

Democracy can be defined as: “Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.”

Wikipedia says: “The most common form of modern democracy is parliamentary democracy in which the voting public takes part in elections and chooses politicians to represent them in a legislative assembly. The members of the assembly then make decisions with a majority vote.”

The insistence of a centralised European administrative bureau that ALL political parties in a country must guarantee to adopt a single policy on an issue regardless of who wins a general election, is not only immoral, undemocratic, offensive, dictatorial and highly contentious, it is also an absolutely terrifying precedent which must be resisted by all possible means at any costs.

Quite simply, the acceptance of the right of the European State to pre-dictate its own preferential limitations upon a country’s political parties will be the death-knell of Democracy as a principle and as a political system.

Please give this some thought. If the countries, politicians and elected administrators of Europe accept the right of the European bureaucracy to place limitations upon the policies of political parties, even when a party is not in government, then there can be no Democratic political opposition to the central European dictatorship.

It will not be the choice of the people that determines their government’s policies, it will be the rules imposed upon all political parties by the European State.

Think about it some more. If the European State claims the right to instruct all political parties to adopt policy approved of by Europe and to be forbidden from adopting any particular policy not approved by Europe, then Europe will be a de facto dictatorship, as pervasive and heinous as that of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, and the countries of the European Union will no longer be Member States of a European Union – they will be the emasculated victims of a dictatorial takeover, an actual conquest.

Bringing it down to our own grass-roots level, if the European Union was recognized as having the supreme authority to dictate to political parties within member states what legislation they may or may not introduce if they should come to power, then any possible future Nationalist government would, quite simply, not be allowed to have ANY of the important Nationalist policies within its manifesto.

Under such conditions, no elected government would be able to reverse previous legislation on such topics as immigration, political correctness, rulings by the European Court of Human Rights, or hold a referendum on membership of the EU, or even be allowed to campaign on these issues or include them in their manifesto!

This step of the European power to demand that all Greek political parties must agree not to reverse a particular set of legislative measures if they happen to be elected at a future date is the thin end of a very dangerous wedge.

If the right of Europe to control policy in political parties is not challenged at the outset, then we will surely be in the final countdown to the ultimate doom of national freedom – the death of Democracy as a system of government and the effective prohibition of any form of political Nationalism.

Coherent Nationalism in Action

Coherent Nationalism in Action

Posted @ Nationalist Unity Forum March 2012

By Peter Mills.

Geert Wilders’ Dutch Freedom Party (Partij voor de Vrijheid or PVV)) is now showing that it is capable of flexing its political muscles, as confirmed in the Telegraph here.

While nationalism in Backwater Britain struggles to find a new political identity and direction for itself after years of refusing to accept that it should change into a less toxic format, in Europe the various nationalist parties are doing rather better at coping with realities and turning them to their advantage, and the Dutch are a good example of this new brand of nationalism – “new” because it is successful.

Already, the Dutch Freedom Party (founded in its present form as recently as 2005) has shown that by re-branding nationalism into a de-toxified populist political format it is perfectly possible to bring nationalism into parliament, and even into government, in which the PVV now has an actual foothold.

The Dutch National Party won 9 seats in the general election of 2006, the year following its formation, a victory which left it the fifth largest party in parliament. However, in the 2009 elections to the European Parliament, the PVV came second by winning 4 out of 25 seats, which was topped by its tremendous success in the 2010 general election – you remember, that was the year the BNP did not win a single seat and promptly collapsed from the rot of internal corruption and incompetence – when Geert Wilders’ nationalist party won no less than 24 seats, promoting it to 3rd largest party.

This is equivalent to the BNP doing better than the Lib-Dems in the 2010 general election! At least somebody got it right, but it was not British nationalism, it was Dutch. If nationalists in Britain had come third instead of the Lib-Dems, David Cameron and his Tories would have either had to swallow their misplaced pride and form a coalition with nationalists, or else blow David Cameron’s chance of being Prime Minister out of the water.

In the Netherlands, though, the Conservative/Liberal party led by Mark Rutte was neither so snooty nor so bigoted as Britain’s fossilised Tories and obsolescent Labourites. Rutte, though his party had not won a clear majority in the Dutch House of Representatives, saw his opportunity to form a government by entering into a coalition with the Dutch Freedom Party, the nationalists.

This coalition is interesting for many reasons, not least of which is the fact that Mark Rutte, who gained power with the agreement and cooperation of the nationalist party, is hailed as being the first Dutch Liberal Prime Minister for 92 years! This amounts to a nationalist image re-branding of atomic proportion.

Dutch Nationalist leader Geert Wilders is now able to bring nationalist policies and ideology into the councils of the wise on equal terms with other politicians. At present, he is speaking out against the Netherlands remaining in the European Single Currency and advocating a return to its own currency the Guilder, and he has extremely cogent reasons for urging this – a damning report from the Lombard Street Research economic consultancy (downloadable here) in which the forthcoming total collapse of the Euro and Eurozone is mapped out in meticulous unavoidable detail.

From the point of view of the Netherlands, Geert Wilders is concerned that since the start of the European Monetary Union (“Eurozone”) the non-Euro countries Switzerland and Sweden have overtaken the Netherlands while the Dutch growth rate has fallen from 3% to a mere 1.25%. Wilders has announced from his prominent political platform that the Euro “…is not in the interests of the Dutch people,” adding that the facts revealed by the report “…go against everything we are told in the media and by the left-wing elite…”

The liberalistic government of Prime Minister Mark Rutte needs the support of the Dutch Freedom Party in order to command a majority and get its legislation passed in parliament. It is reported (in the Telegraph and other sources) that Geert Wilders and Mark Rutte have been in talks together to discuss the current urgent financial catastrophe, especially the horrific 16 billion Euros’ worth of new “austerity cuts” which, like those imposed upon Greece, are now required by Europe in the Netherlands economy to prevent a 4.5% budget deficit.

The interesting thing from the viewpoint of British nationalists looking in from outside is that, as the European crisis gathers impact like a slow-motion avalanche, the de-toxified and re-branded Dutch nationalist party is in there with the top politicians, holding conferences with the Prime Minister and not only being taken seriously, but in addition, looking increasingly fitter for government themselves on a daily basis.

The Dutch nationalist party stands a very good chance of so impressing the general population that increased votes are likely in forthcoming elections, and especially so if the nationalist leader is part of the political team that can rescue the Netherlands from the predicted impending collapse of the Eurozone and, thereby, save the Dutch economy and population from the same kind of ruination and squalor now inflicted upon the Euro’s Greek victims.

The vital question nationalists in Britain need to ask themselves is this: can anyone picture in their mind’s eye a scenario in which Nick Griffin is asked by David Cameron to attend a meeting to discuss economic affairs? I rather expect I am not alone in finding it easier to imagine such an invitation being made to Kermit the Frog.

This underlines the simple fact that, unless nationalism in Britain can get it’s act together, de-toxify its image, appoint honest management, re-brand itself and become a populist political party that can successfully win increasing votes from ordinary voters, not only is British nationalism doomed to abject failure and ridicule, but Britain itself, as we have known and loved it, is also doomed to continue to be nothing but the handy offshore garbage dump of Europe.

British nationalism desperately needs a new direction and a new image, and it also needs a sweeping “house-clearing” of all the crooks, traitors, con-tricksters, get-rich-quick merchants, semi-illiterate writers and speakers, petulant psychopaths, buffoons and Muppets who have become its traditional entrenched leadership, advisors, commentators and management.

This is why Nationalist Unity is vitally important, and this is why we need the Nationalist Unity Forum. It may not itself be the answer to the problem, but it is certainly providing the research team that will find that answer.a

Jailing People for Political Opinions is Not Civilized

Jailing People for Political Opinions is Not Civilized, Andrew Brons Tells Hypocritical Liberals

Posted at BNP Ideas

European Union member countries who jail people just for expressing political opinions are not civilized, Andrew Brons MEP told shocked liberals in the EU Parliament yesterday.

Speaking to a meeting of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), Mr Brons said that a “common area of Justice is a fine ideal—an area in which Justice prevails throughout.

“However, that does not mean that there should be harmonisation of law or legal systems,” he said.

“Law can vary from country to country, whilst all might achieve Justice by different routes and channels. Furthermore, harmonisation is not a sufficient condition for Justice; it is not a guarantor of Justice.

“However, we cannot be complacent. Countries—and I mean countries in the European Union which that seek to gaol people for expressing political opinions, or which ban political parties that pursue their aims by peaceful means, or which seek to prescribe and proscribe different opinions about what happened in Armenia in 1915, are not civilised countries that subscribe to any ideal of Justice.

“History should be left to historians. The only politicians that impose views of history are totalitarian politicians,” Mr Brons said.

“Before we try to impose a common template on twenty-seven—soon to be twenty-eight—different countries, we must, at the very least ensure that the template is itself just and that the countries, from which the template is drawn, practise justice.

“Attempts to build complementary legal devices, like the European Arrest Warrant, have not served the interests of Justice.

“This device has facilitated people being extradited and gaoled, pending trial, without the court in the extraditing country being able to judge the strength or weakness of the case.

“These attempts to harmonise and make complementary, different legal systems are not motivated by service of Justice but by building EU competence, brick by brick.

“Spending money works wonders for the conscience but it does not guarantee the achievement of Justice, any more than the sale of indulgences, in the Middle Ages, guaranteed the achievement of Virtue.”

Grooming gang Muslims face wrath of English locals

Grooming gang Muslims
face wrath of English locals

Following the disturbances last night in the Lancashire town of Heywood, in which some 300 local anti-grooming protesters fought running battles with police and Muslim taxi-drivers, Nick Griffin MEP has issued the following statement and appeal:

“There is no point the police and media blaming ‘mindless yobs’ for these disturbances. Such ignorant and insulting snobbery will only make things worse.


"The police, press, politicians and middle class social services and education authority bosses have
ignored or belittled the legitimate grievances of the English community in towns such as Heywood for years. It is time they came down from their ivory towers and listened to the well-founded concerns of real people on real streets.

“Take-aways and Muslim taxi firms are the rotten core of three intertwined social evils: the paedophile grooming and gang-rape of young girls, violent race-hate attacks on young lads, and the heroin trade. Popular outrage over these problems is not ‘mindless hooliganism’ or ‘racism’; it is the direct result of more than a decade of police failure. Under such circumstances, English community self-defence is no offence – the only surprise is that it has taken so long.

“I spoke out about the unaddressed evil of Muslim grooming gangs preying on young girls from other communities back in 2004. The police reaction was to turn a blind eye to those sickening crimes. Instead they arrested me and twice put me on trial under a perverse law that says that telling the truth is no defence. The media reaction was to censor the election broadcast the British National Party made to draw attention to the plight of thousands of vulnerable victims and their families.

“If the police and courts had done their duty and taken effective action years ago, the towns of northern England would not now be a powder keg of communal tensions. If the police act now against the paedophile groomers, the anti-English ethnic cleansers and the narco-jihad heroin pushers, then they can still defuse the time-bomb ticking away in Heywood and in dozens of other towns.

“The recent arrests and the current trials of grooming suspects show that the police are able to act, but they are still pussyfooting around. 47 Muslim paedophile suspects facing trial is a start, but everyone knows that this is only the tip of the iceberg. If the police are serious about heading off trouble, they need to arrest hundreds of these criminals and to close down the shops and taxi firms that they use as the bases for their crimes against our community.

“If, instead of enforcing the law and protecting the hitherto patient majority, the police turn on the protesters and the media demonise them, then the righteous anger over grooming, anti-English violence and the heroin jihad will explode on a far bigger scale. The authorities must understand that the protests in Heywood last night may be the last warning they get, the last chance to put justice before political correctness, and the last opportunity to convince working class communities that they don’t have to take the law into their own hands.

“Muslim leaders must also do the right thing. They need to act, right now, to distance their community from the criminal minority bringing shame on them all. Rather than joining in the ritual condemnations of ‘Islamophobia’, I appeal to them to call on their people to put their own house in order and hand the groomers, the thugs and the pushers over to the police.

“Clear and decisive action to show that not all Muslims sympathise with the paedophile grooming and beating of Unbelievers, would do more than anything else to defuse the situation and to protect the many Asian-owned businesses which are not involved in these crimes.

“As the only high-ranking elected voice of the long-ignored English majority, I also appeal directly to the protesters: Do not blame innocent Asians. Blame the people who most deserve the blame – the politicians, police bosses and media editors who first created and then ignored these threats to our community.

“Don’t rise to provocations or give the Powers That Be the chance to arrest and demonise you. The anger against the groomers is understandable and justified, but the solution is not to burn shops run by paedophile groomers, but to BOYCOTT them. The only way to deal with these people is not to deal with them.

“And the only way to get politicians on our side is to vote out the ones who aren’t – that means entire families, whole workplaces, entire pubs and whole communities taking a solemn vow never to vote Labour, LibDem or Tory ever again. Those parties have spent years pandering to the Muslim block vote by putting the handcuffs of political correctness on the police. They’re all the same, they’re all to blame!”

Mr Griffin also added that the news from Heywood, and of similar concerns in both Rochdale and Oldham, makes it even more important that as many people as possible attend the demonstration in Hyde tomorrow at 11am.

Make sure you do your bit to protect English children. Join me and many others on our demo to demand justice for English victims of race-hate attacks and force the police to take action against the criminals in the Muslim community who commit these vile actions. We need you tomorrow... make plans today!

Thank you,
Nick Griffin MEP
Chairman, British National Party

ON THE DEFEAT FOR MAHOMET-HOUSE IN DUDLEY

DEFEAT FOR MAHOMET-HOUSE IN DUDLEY

| Written by Rev West |

An application to have a Mohammedan Super-Mosque built in Dudley to be named “The Pride of Dudley” has been unanimously turned-down by the Dudley Development Control Committee which described it as “characterless”, “featureless”, “inappropriate” and, most appropriate of all, “an alien feature.”

A similar Mahomet-House proposal has also been turned down by Maidenhead.

God is still at work in Britain!

Islam which likes to portray itself - with treacherous media, Radio 4 and BBC help - as the “Religion of Peace” is on record as being a Jew-baiting, wife-beating, honour-killing, Israel-phobic religion which has a halal philosophy of cruelty to animals and believes, in its sharia, in the death-penalty for homosexual offenders.

This is surely not hope, but hate, to any normal thinking, reason-using human being in Britain.

But every single major political party in Britain is complicit in a conspiracy of silence on this matter.

This is appeasement, super-appeasement, beyond the wildest imaginations of any.

It veritably puts Neville Chamberlain, the man who sold out to Hitler, into the category of a Hercules!

But there are now signs that ordinary people, and their local authorities, are showing more guts than our spineless and weak leaders in church and state, who seem to care nothing for the future of these islands.

The 14^th century Byzantine or East Roman Emperor, Manuel II Palaiologos, said of Islam, Radio 4’s “Religion of Peace”:

“Show me just what Mahomet brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Bishop Michael Nazir Ali of the Church of England has said that:

“….given the world view [of Islam]… there can never be sufficient appeasement and new demands will continue to be made."

It was, of course, just the same with Hitler and his aggressive ideology.